linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] sched/fair: Active balancer RT/DL preemption fix

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191001133115.GC6481@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Tue, 1 Oct 2019 15:31:15 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, qais.yousef@....com,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] sched/fair: Active balancer RT/DL preemption fix

Hi Valentin,

On 01/10/19 11:29, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> (expanded the Cc list)
> RT/DL folks, any thought on the thing?

Even if I like your idea and it looks theoretically the right thing to
do, I'm not sure we want it in practice if it adds complexity to CFS.

I personally never noticed this kind of interference from CFS, but, at
the same time, for RT we usually like more to be safe than sorry.
However, since this doesn't seem to be bullet-proof (as you also say), I
guess it all boils down again to complexity vs. practical benefits.

Best,

Juri